TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reinafter, 'the detained articles') seized by the Customs Department vide Detention Receipt dated 5th February, 2024 (hereinafter, 'detention receipt'). 3. The case of the Petitioner is that she was travelling from Saudi Arabia to New Delhi on 5th February 2024 by flight no. SG 066. Upon arrival at the Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, the Petitioner was intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and the detained articles, which the Petitioner is stated to have been wearing were seized vide the detention receipt. According to the Petitioner, no Show Cause Notice with respect to the detention (hereinafter, 'SCN) has been issued to the Petitioner till date. 4. On the last date of hearing, ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include jewellery. * * * * 3. Passenger arriving from countries other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar:-An Indian resident or a foreigner residing in India or a tourist of Indian origin, not being an infant arriving from any country other than Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar, shall be allowed clearance free of duty articles in his bona fide baggage, that is to say, - (a) used personal effects and travel souvenirs; and (b) articles other than those mentioned in Annexure-I, up to the value of fifty thousand rupees if these are carried on the person or in the accompanied baggage of the passenger: Provided that a tourist of foreign origin, not being an infant, shall be allowed clearance f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as also this Court. The Supreme Court in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, [(2017) 16 SCC 93], while considering the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the 'Act') read with the Baggage Rules, 1998, that were in force during the relevant period, held that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of 'personal effects'. The relevant paragraphs of the said order read as under: "13. Insofar as the question of violation of the provisions of the Act is concerned, we are of the opinion that the respondent herein did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary declaration was made by the respondent while passing through the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15. [...] Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket which was found to be in the possession of the respondent. Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention of the respondent that her parents at the relevant time were in Indonesia and she had plans of proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia. The High Court has rightly held that when she brought jewellery of a huge amount into the country, the respondent did not seem to have the intention to smuggle the jewellery into India and to sell it off. Even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of the respondents themselves and which was explained and highlighted in the clarificatory Circular referred to above. That Circular had come to be issued at a time when the Appendices to the 1998 Rules had employed the phrase "used personal effects, excluding jewellery". The clarification is thus liable to be appreciated in the aforesaid light and the statutory position as enunciated by the respondents themselves requiring the customs officers to bear a distinction between "personal jewellery" and the word "jewellery" when used on its own and as it appears in the Appendices. This position, in our considered opinion, would continue to endure and remain unimpacted by the provisions contained in the 2016 Rules." 9. The above mentioned deci....